* '^v * 













^-..^■^' .v^im"- %,yyM^\\ 









^. -.:^'^^' .'^^ "''^^ \%«m:^' .^^"^ "^^. 



. 7 * A 



K^ 



H^^ 






.**^.. 



>^ **'^-" 






"o, *, 



; '■>^>^. 









^^ 







.0^ » 



o 









^'^^ 













'.n^ 






<t>^\^ y 







^^^.0 



* — f^ ♦ ^^ 



. '<^ 



-i 






.V 



■:< 






O 1 




/ 








> » 


• o. 


^% 




a ' 
c 


t 










-) 




°^ 











-^^ 



0^ *^ 



'^_ 



.^^ 



-0^ 



C .' 



^ > s • • * 



A 









V 



av 






^^ 












•« 'o ^"^ ' 



' o ^^ -^^^ 



>• v. 



. ♦ * A 






o ♦ « 






^. ^^ryr. 












4^ *7^^.» ^f^ 




.-^.gf^.' ^f'^u '-yW.' y ^"^ -W- V 



• - ft 






^ 



"•^o^ 
.1°* 













'I 



^l' 






■.<i» 









rCVv^ \ 




» ♦ • *- 






'V'^' 






-^^ 



"^o 



l^i erf i , 



' • • • A*^' 



,,^. 



(^ 



' •• • .v^' 






• » • 



"o-'^i" 



. . >■ <'v 






' o . i • 















^ -r"!!!?^;'- 






^<o 



^o- 




s^'^aaxjat 



/ 



OF 



MR. REED, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 



IV 



RELVTION TO THE FAILURE OF THE HILL 



MAKIN6 



APPROPRIATIONS FOR FORTIFICATIONS 



AT 



THE LAST SESSION OF CONGRESS, 



DKLIVEHED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



January 27, 1836. 



WASHINGTON: 

NATIONAL INTtLI.IGENCEK OFFICK. 
1836. 



SPEECH. 






^ 

o The following resolution, oirered by Mr. Adams, being under considera- 

^ tion, vi/: 

IiLMi/i-tJ, TlKit SO much of llie mcssacje of the President of tlie Unitrd States to 
Congress, at the commencement of tlie present session, as relates to the fnhire, at tlie 
last sessioM of Congress, of the hiil containing tlte ordinary appropriation fur fortifica- 
tions, be referr^rd to a ^eieet coniin ttee, with inntrnctions to inquire into, ar>.(l report 
to the House, the cause and circumstances of the laihire of tliis bill. 

Mr. REED said, I feci pmbarrasscd in rising to address the House on the 
present occasion. The subject is painful, but I am allowed no choice; and I 
proceed, without introduction, to state such facts as I deem important and 
relevant, concisely and plainly. 

The Prosidcnt'of the United States, at the commencement of the present 
session of Congress, alludes to the loss of thi.' fortification bill in the follow- 
ing wordj: 

" M'lch loss and inconvenience have been experienced in consequence of the failure 
of the bid containing the ordinary appropriations fur fortifications, which passed one 
branch of the National Lc;:islatuie at the last session, but was lost in the other. Thip 
failure wa-; the more regretted, not only because it necessarily interrupted and delayed 
the pn^gress of a system of nationul defence, projected immediately after tiie last war, 
and since steadily piirse.ed, hut also because it contained a contingent apprcpriation, 
inserted in acc^nvlance with the views of the Executive, in aid of this important objec% 
and other branches of the national defence, some portions of which nvglil have been 
most usefully applied during- tlic past season." 

The complaint is somewhat indefiniH", (said Mr. R.,) as the bill referred tu 
passed both Houses of Congress, but not in concurrence. 1 presume it was 
intended to make the charge against the Senate. Though respectful in form, 
it is a grave and weighty charge. Appropriations weic not made. We did 
some things we ought not to have done, and left undoe.e mani/ tilings which 
we ought To have done. I hold the President himself deeply implicated, and 
will not therefore answer to hischarirc. But I will suppose the charge comes 
from the people of the United Slates, and then I hold myself bound to re.Mder 
an account of my stewardship to my constituents and country. I will con- 
sider the charge as made against the Government — the President, Senate, 
and House of Representatives. I plead not guilty, and mean to exculpate 
myself. 1 intend to do more — to criminate others, and fix upon them tlie 
giiilt, so far as guilt there may be, of defeating the passage of the fortification 
bill. I charge "the defeat of "that bill to the President, or a majority of the 
House of Representatives of the last Congress, being administration men. 

In examining this painful subject, I determine to bear testimony to the 
truth — to state what I san\ and heard, and Inow. I intend to express nny 
opinion upon the subjrct frankly, firmli/, and temperately. 

The President, in his message at the opening of Congress, in December, 
18-34, sounded the war trumpet, and it did not give an uncertain sound. The 
following are his words: 

'• It is my conviction that the United States ought to insist on .i prompt execution 
of the treaty; and, in case it be refused, or longer delayed, take redress into their own 
hands. After the delay, on the part of France, of a quarter of a century, in acknow- 



4 
♦ 

ledginjj these claims by treaty, it is not to be tolerated that another quarier of a century 
is to be wasltd in negotiating- about the paj ment. The laws of nations provide a reme- 
dy for sucli occabions. It is a well settled pvincl[jle of the international code, that 
where one nation owes another a liquidated dtht, xyh'cli it i-efuses or neglects to pa}', 
the aggrieved party may seize on the pioperty belonging to the other, its citizens, or 
siiWjecls, siifliclent to pay the debt, without giving just cause of war. This remedy 
lias been repeatedly resorted to, and recently by France herself towards Portugal, 
under circumstances less unquestionable." 

The President's advice and reconunendation, if not icar direct, could not 
fail to result in war with France. Wliat man believes we could have made 
reprisal, or seized upon a single sliip of France, without producing war? A 
powerful nation may seize upon ilse properly of a feeble and timid one, by 
way of reprisal, without resistance; but not so as to France. I'lie message 
w-is a war message, and notified us to make the necessary preparation. But 
I desire to thank God our voices were nut for tear. 

Tills message was referred to the appropriate committees. What action 
was had upon the subject? What preparations and what appropriations did 
the committees propose fgr fortifications and for defence? 

I hold the bill, called the fortification bill of the House of Representatives, 
in my hand. It pro|)osed to appiopriute for fortifications, in all, the sum of 
$439,000. The Journal of the House states: 

"Mr. Edward Everett moved to amend the bill by striking out these words, 
'viz: 

"For the preservation of Castle Island and repairs of Fort Independence, 
' in addition to the balance of former appropriations, $8,000, and, in lieu 

* thereof, insert the following, viz: 

"For the preservation ol Castle Island, and for repairing the fortifications 
' on Castle Island, in Boston harbor, according to the plan adopted by the 

* Board of Engineers on tiie 24th of I^larch, 1834, in addition to the balance 

* of former approj)rialions, $75,000." 

That all ilie forces of the House of Representatives might be rallied, we 
had a "call of the House," and then the vote was taken by yeas and nays: 
for tlic amendment 87, against it 120. These yeas and nays are in the Jour- 
nal of tlift House of Representatives, page 22.5. Few administration men 
can be found among the yeas.i^ The chairman of the Committee of Ways and 
Means, (IMr. Polk,) and tin; chairman of the Committee on Foreign AlVairs 
himself, who figurccl so much in the three million amendment, arc among the 
nays. They and others would not consent, notwithstanding the threatening 
aspect of war, to appropriate $75,000 for the defence and protection of the 
harbor of Boston, and Boston itself, and the immense public properly at the 
navy yard at Charlestown. 

We of Massachusetts, and those who acted w ith us, were accused of ex- 
travagance and profusion for pursuing a course that woidd increase the ex- 
penditures, and render the adminislralion unpopular. There was no predis- 
position to the three million appropriation at that time, or the money was 
intended for a very different object from that of the defence of Massachusetts 
aid Maryland, cVc. 

The gentleman from INIaryland (Mr. McKim) moved to amend the bill by 
adding " for the repair of Fort McHenry, at Baltimore, and putting the same 
in a proper state of defence, $50,000." The yeas and nays upon this amend- 
ment were, yeas 66, nays 129; and gentlemen voted as on the former 
amendment. The mover, thouoh a good administration man, in the present 
case fared no belter than others. Impartial injustice was dealt out to all 
propositions for amcndmenls. 



Again, Mr. Tliompsoii moved an amendment: " viz. $44,000 fur llie pro- 
tection of St. Aiiu'iistine." For ihe amendment, yeas 67, nays 1 lo. This 
happened on liio 15lh ol January, about 4-5 (la}s hefore the mcinoraljle -'{d of 
March, wiien $800,000 (in addition to the amendments of llie Senate, doub- 

.ling the appropriation of the House,) was pronounced by liie Sectetary of 
Stale, Mr. Forsytii, to be a '' pitifid siiiti.'" 

Another n)Oti'on was m:ide by Mr, Parker, on tlie 19tii January, to strike 
out " For a fort on Tlirog's Neck, East river, New York, in addition to a 

■ balance of former appropriations, $30,000." Tlie yeas and nays were, yeas 
8G, nays 113. The bill passed precisely as reported by the Committee of 
Ways and Means. We in the niinoriiy (said JMr. K.) were not allowed to 
increase the amount a single dollar. The bill, having passed the House of 
Representatives, was sent to the Senate. How did the Senate treat the bill? 
Did they attempt to reduce the amount pioposed by the Housel No. And 
yet one not informed upon the subject might well be led to think so, from the 
complaints from various quarters that the Senate drfcated the ordinary ap- 
propriations for fortilicalions. On the contrary, the Senate considered the 
bill of the House of Representatives as wholly inadequate and deficient, in 
not providing for the defence of the most important and defenceless parts of 
the country." Their amendments to the bill of the House of Representatives 
were essential to the defence of the country — so all-important, that I name 
them particularlv, v'r.r. 

For Fort Delaware, instead of $70,000, $150,000; being an ad- 
dition of - $80,000 

For Fort Milllin, <fcc. ------ 75,000 

For Castle Island, &c. ... - - 75,000 

For defence of Maryland, _ - - - - 100,000 

For armament of fortifications, - - - - 100,000 

Amounting to, .... - $43 0,000 

The bill was returned from the Senate with the above amendments; and, 
being so amended and returned to this House, it was absolutely within the 
power and control of this House. We had only to adopt the amendments, 
and the bill would have become a law, with the signature of the President. 
In that event, we should have added to our appropriation of - $439,000 
The further sum of - - - - - - 430,000 



Amounting to, .... - $869,000 

all for fortnfuations, except one hundred thousand dollars for armament 
for fortifications. By the Senate's amendment, several States were to be 
protected and fortified. But this House neglected and refused to pass the 
bill, and were therefore cuilty of defeating tlie ordinari/ apprnpriatinn bill 
for fort if cations, and ought honestly to acknowledge it, and justify tlnMiiselves 
as far as they may be able. 

The House of Representatives of the last Congress must be responsible 
for the consequences. I speak of the ordinari/ appropriations. The extra- 
ordinary — the three millions — I will considt r by and by. The President very 
justly makes the distinction in his charge; and 1 intend to make it and keep 
it distinctly in view, though the resolution we are considering proposes to in- 
quire as to the cause of the failure of the ordinary a[)propriations only. 



Although this bill was perfectly familiar to this House — our gwn child — we 
could not adopt it with the Senate's amendment?. We took time to consider, 
in a session of 93 days, when there was no time to be lost. The bill was re- 
ferred to the Committee of Ways and Means, that every dollar of appropri- 
ation bliiKild be scanned and scrutinized, that not a brick or stone sliould be 
laid upon our fortifications, unless it were absolutely required, and the cost 
counted. But the conimittte would not consent to appropiiale fur Massachu- 
setts, Maryland, Pennsylvania, pdaware, &c. They reported amendments 
to the Senate's amendments, and the bill was rv.^poried to ilie House, with the 
amendments, on the 3d day of March; but the House finally agreed to the 
amendn.ents of the Senate. What next? At 8 o'clock, on the 3d of IMarch, 
the last night of the session, still holdivg and detaining llie fortification bill 
in our possession, an amendment was proposed of an entire new section. It 
deserves not the name oi amendment. It was a proposition, at that late hour, 
entirely to change a bill we had been e.xamir.ing for months. It was in the 
following words: 

"And hs It enacted, &c. That the sum of three -.Tiiir.ons of dollars be, and the same 
is hereb}-, appropriatetl, out of any nioiu-y in the treasui v not cthcrsvise appropriated, 
to be expended, in whole cr in part, under the direction of the President of the United 
States, for the military and nnval service, including' fortTicalions and ordnance, and in- 
crease of the nav) :' Frovidtd, Such expendituie shoiilil be rendered necessaiy for the 
defence of the country, prior to the next meeting of Congress." 

This amendment was proposed by the chairman of the Committee on For- 
eign Affairs. The appropriate Committees on INIilitary Afiairs and Naval 
Aflairs, and even Ways and Means, were all superseded. The three million 
amendment came upon us sudden as a thunderbolt, without report or estimate, 
or explanation. We were called upon to vote. There was no time for de- 
bate; and all we could do was to call the yeas and nays, and record our names 
upon the journal. Well might we be astonished; and our astonishment was 
not a little increased to see the very men, chairmin and all, who would not 
consent to add A175,000 to defend two of tin; principal cities in the Union 
in an exposed and defenceless state, rwdy in a monitnt to vote three millions. 
But so it was. And we Representatives, not intrusted with Executive secrets, 
were left to wonder what could have produced so sudden and extraordinary a 
change. The tables were turned. Profusion and extravagance took ihe place 
of parsimony, and precipitati( n that of tardy de.lay. I repeat, without slop- 
ping to deliberate; for we had no time, we voted and adopted the three mil- 
lion section, and called it an am.endment to the bill. It passed, yeas 10^), 
nays 77. We then sent the bill so amended to the Senate ior their approval. 
And here, give me leave to say, it is all-important to the correct understand- 
ing of this controversy to inquire at what hour we sent it to the Senate. Wo 
sent tl;c bill to the Senate at eight o'clorl: P. M., four hours only before the 
close of the session, according to th.e opinions of some of the members of 
the House of Representatives. Well might the Senate be astonished. But 
we are told that " the Senate did nut receive it in good temper." 

The gentleman from New York, (Mr. CvMUitEi-ENG,) who just closed his 
speech, has tendered what ho calls the irvc issue, and it is thi>: " Who de- 
feated the three million appropriation?" intended, as l:e says, to provide for 
a contincent war. I must remind the gentleman that he has wholly forgotten 
the resolution we are discussing. The resolution proposes to inquire into the 
causes of the failure of the ordinary appropriation for fortifications. Surely 
the three millions was not ordinary, but most extraordinary. I will examine 
that subject before I sit down. 



The President secretly and improperly interfered, (o induce the Mouse of 
Representatives to act " in accordance wilij the will of the Executive." We 
have just learned in this debate that the cliairniaii of the Committee of Ways 
and Aleans (i\lr. Poi.k) was an agent to lliat effect, and enjoined secrecy upon 
soirte,at least,of those whom In; inlormcd that t!iel*ri;sident wished to obtain the 
tince million appropriation. The then chairman (now tii'x:.\Ki:K) huing called 
upon, has statL-d it from Lis cliair publicly, and it has been publicly confirmed 
by the gentleman from Tennessee; (Mr. Lea.) The Pri;sideiit, in so doinpf, 
greatly erred. There can be no jnstificaiion for such scent interference and 
influence in this House. I saw we were swiftly swept along against the ap- 
parent current, by a slran;:e undertow, the cause unseen and unknown. Those 
who wo;ill not vote for ^50,000, .or $75,000, in addition to the $439,000, 
were now ready for three millions; and ready to dtnounce any man as re- 
gardless of his country's danger and country's honor who would refuse to 
vote for that sum. 

The proposition to annex a section to the appropriation bill for fortifica- 
tions, of three millions, was most extraordinary. The President had not re- 
commended it. The Committee of Ways and Means had not examined it. 
There was no report of any committee in favor of it; no estimate from any 
body; no specification; no precedent. The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Cambreluxg) has just read a number of cases which he considers prece- 
dents — cases of general appropriations of money to a considerable amount. 
I have now no opportunity to examine the cases he has referred to. They 
seem all to be of ancient date, and most of them specific. The case mainly 
relied upon is that of two millions, in 18UG, and which the gentleman informs 
us is "so important, comprehensive, and indtfinile, and applies so directly 
to the case." If my recollection be correct, that appropriation was called 
" secret service money," put into the hands of the PresidL-nt to purchase 
Florida. There was, 1 think, at the time, loud complaint against that appro- 
priation. It was answered, that the object of the appropriation must be kept 
a secret, or the purpose for which it was apj)ropriated would be defeated. 
Docs the gentleman view that case like the one we are cousideringl Was the 
three millions of last year, proposed to be added to the fortification bill, con- 
sidered secret service money? I defy the gentleman to find a case like the 
three million proposition of last year. The history of our legislation docs 
not furnish it, in my opinion — an appropriation of such vast amount, made 
without time for examination and without specification. 

The tlireo million amendment was first presented to the notice of Congress 
sit hours only before the close of the session, without report or time for ex- 
amination or discussion. Sir, for such a precedent I am quite sure gentlemen 
will search in vain. Things ought not so to be. We are bound to examine 
and consider before we decide such important subjects, and vote away such 
large sums. We want titnc, and facts, and estimates, and specifications; and 
we ought not to act in the dark, under the influence or dictation of any man. 

But my colleague (Mr. Adams) has discovered a reason and foundation for 
the three million appropriation, to me as novel and extraordinary as was ihfe 
proposition for the appropriation itself. It was, he says, founded on his reso- 
lution; which I will consider hereafter. 

In presenting the resolution now und<«r discussion, the gentleman from Mas- 
sachusptts, my colleague, saw fit to indul^'e in a course of remarks wholly un- 
lookcd for, and of the most painful character. 

The resolution is one of inquiry; its object is the ascertninnifnt of facts; 
it asks a special committee. By the usage of this House, should the resolu- 



8 

tion pass, the mover would be appoiiilcd cliyirman. But niv colleague (Mr. 
Adams) has seen fit to give a minute and detailed history of what he. supposes 
facts, ill tile vtnj case to be investigated. He iiasdonc it in a spirit and tem- 
per ill calculated to inspire confidence in his imp.irliality. Was it necessary, 
or expedient, or coniaiendahk-, or justifiable, to use sucii lantruaee of violence 
and abuse towards Senators and the Senate ef the United Slatesi 

The ruk' in what is c;}!IeJ Jefll-rson's Manual, our book of rules. Is as fol- 
lows: " It is a breach of order in debate to notice what has been said upon 
the same subject in the other House, or the particular votes or majorities on 
it there; because tli." opinion of each House should be left to its own inde- 
pendency, not to be influenced by t!io proceedings of the other; and the quot- 
ing them iiii'iht lieget reflections leading to a misunderstanding between the 
two Houses." This rule is not an empty form. How all-important to main- 
tain ki.d and respectful feelings between two bodies, who must act in unison, 
or tiu; operations of ti;e Government must ceasi! With this rule before him, 
and with strong and reiterated [irofessions of a desire to promote harmonv 
between the diflerent deparimeiits of the Governtnent, my colleague has 
quoted in t!iis debate the votes and speeches of Senators, and denounced the 
Senate with unmeasured severity, and thereby violated most palpably the rule 
above named, and set at naught all his professions in favor of harmony and a 
good uiiderst inding. His speech is a poor commentary upon his professions, 
and I listened to it with regret and pain. 

My colleague, throughout his speech, has had much to say about man-icor- 
ship. I never heard him accused of that idolatry. But there is another kind 
of idolatry, of which, perhaps, some are in more danfrer — I mean t!ic worship 
of — wliat my colleague was pleased to call, a few days sLice, in this House — 
our noble selves. 

xNext to being right, we all desire to be consistent. That desire is lawful 
and commendable; but we are in danger of putting ihc consistent before the 
right, and tliat is a sore evil under the sun. 

My colleague, in his speech, in reference to the fortification bill, Isf, de- 
fended himself thrnuirhout. Of this I do not complain. I mean to imitate 
him. 2dly. He defended the majorily of the House of Representatives, even 
when opposed to himself. 3Jly. He defended the conduct of those who urged 
constitutional scruples in opposition to him, and his opinions, in relation to the 
hour of adjourning, and who broke up a quorum, and defeated the bill. But 
my colleague (Mr. Adams) is very indignant at two thiiics: Isi. An cxprossion 
used by a distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Wedstf.r,) who, 
after showing, in an able and masterly argument, the iinconsfitiitionaliti/, 
danger, and ineipediencij of voting for the section proposed by the House of 
Representatives, " adding the three millions," observed, " if the proposition 
were now before us, and the guns of the enemy were battering against the 
•walls of the Capitol, I would not agree to it." And he immediately adds, 
" the people of this country have an interest and property, an inheritance, in 
this instrument, (the constitutio-i,) against the value of which forty Capitols 
do not weigh the twentieth |)art of one poor scruple." 

My colleague quoted tin- lirst sentence, and used language in reference to 
the quotation, and in reference to the great and dislinauished man, the anilior 
of those remarks, which I will not repeat, irhnllt/ unjuslifiahle, and rrif/iouf 
foundation. But I stop not to eulogize or defend the distinguisheii individual 
referred to. Hi; needs not my aid. I merely ask my colleague why he did 
not quote the argument of the Senator from Massachusetts, and why he se- 
lected a single isolated sentence? I ask my colleague, if he had enleriained' 



tlic snnic opinions as did the J^ciialur ri'l'crrt'd to, tli.it tlio "t!irc«: niilllon sec- 
tion Wiis uncdiistitiilidiKi/, iiirrptd'uiit, ;uk1 of inasl daiigirous tiudtnci/,^^ whe- 
tliCi' /ic would iiiiVL" votoj lor ii to suvl' the' Capitol, or Ids own Hie? 

Tlu; ollnr tliiii!» tlii.il oxcitcd my col't-a^Uf's lioi di>j)lfasiire whs, a rcsofu- 
tion stilt hy llic Scnalf; to tlic Iloiist- ol' Rfprc^ci/tativcs, on llic 3d oj" March, 
as follows, viz: ' 



re 

th 
ins 



" liesohcJ, That ii nu'ssiifre be sriit to the honorchio the EIousc of Rcprescntativts, 
spi'cirully to niniiid the House (iftlie rijjort ol'lhu CoiiiiniUce orConiurii'.c ii| pointed on 
V clisagrccin;; votes of the two Hou:;cs on the a;iit'!V<iiiR'i:t of the Senate to tlie till rts^iccl- 
g the fortifieationy of the United Statfs.'' * 



And iny colleague makes the followinsi commenl: " Wiicn that message was 
tlclivored, lie must confess, if iver a feeling of shame and of indignation had 
filled his hosoni, it was at that nicir.ent. He f( ll it as an insult (o the immediate 
representatives of the people; and if it had been sent at a nion;ei,t when the 
House vet existed, with the power to resent nnfirovoked insidt, he vc rily be- 
lieved that, imitating the example of enr Congress in a somewhat similar case, 
during" the revolutionary war, he should have moved ih.at a message bo sent 
b\' two members of the House to cast the Senate message on their floor, and 
tell them that it was not tiie custom of the House to receive irisolcui messages. 
It was, perhaps, well that ho had no opportunity to give vent to those feelings." 
The ahove message was sent after anxious waiting in the Senate to hear 
from the House of Representatives. Tlic Conference Commillee l.ad sepa- 
rated, and the Senate's commii!"(; had long before reported to the Senate, 
but nothing was heard from the House of Representatives. Was tliere just 
occasion for such a burst of indienation as my colleaciie describes, and which 
agitated his breast, ai^d urged him to do that which, if done, must have dis- 
luinored both him and the House of Representatives? Aiid yet he takes fre- 
quent occasion to complain of the Senate that the}' received the amendment 
of the flouse of Representatives it! bad temper. 

I was Iierc, Mr. Speaker, upon' that abasing and morlifyii:g occasion. It 
was a painftd night. Though subject to like passions as other men, I desire 
to be thankful that I was not on that occasion so filled with " anger and indig- 
nation." I felt humbled by the gross misconduct of some in this House. I 
saw things here that were wrong and wholly unjustifiable; and if 1 felt anger 
risioiT in my breast, that feeling was tempered, modcralid, and repressed by 
the high and responsible obligations of duty to my country. These obliga- 
tions had an inlluenre paramount to passion. I was for the fortification bill^ 
I was for substance, and not fciip. I was tint for tear uiih the Senate^ but 
for the dcfenec of the enuittnj. 

I beg for a moment to consider certain resolutions which arc supposed to 
materially afiect the present controversy: I refer to resolutions from the Com- 
mill(M; on Foreign Affairs, reported to this House on the :?7th of February, 
four days only before the close of tlu; session. These were the ircir resolu- 
tions, the foundation of the tlire'e million appropriation. 

On the 2d day df March, late in the day, the war resolutions of the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Aflairs were brought before the House by a motion of the 
chairman (Mr. Cambrei.f.nc) to discharge the Commilte^ of the \\'hole. This 
motion, as everybody knows, was made to facilitate and hasten the adoption 
of those resolutions. The vote was taken by ayes and noes — ayes 104, noes 
92. The administration party were too strong; we were beaten. How did 
we vote? Was my coHea^ue then in favor of passing resolutions as the found- 
ation of war appropriations? No: he voted with us. But the committee 
were discharged, and the resolutions were brought before the Honse; and the 



Jonrnal states the House then proceeacd to tlie consideration of llie said re- 
ports, viz. tiif reports of the majority and the minority; and the resoUitions 
recommended by liic committee were read, as follows. I here read fron\the 
Journal, \>ngu 496: 

'* 1. Jiesolced, Tbr.t It wculd be incompatible with the Kglils and honor of the Unit- 
ed States further to ncgotiale in relation to the treaty entered into by France on the 
4th of .Inly, 18.31; and tliat this House will insist upon its execution as ratified by both 
Governments." 

"2. Resolved, Tliat the Committee on Foreign Affairs be discharged from the fur- 
ther considc ration of so much of the President's message as relates to commercial re- 
strictions, or to reprisals on the commerce of France. 

" 3. Jiefolvfd, That contingent jjreparation ought to be made, to meet any emer- 
gency growing out of our relations with France. 

" Mr. .John Qiiincy Adams, on the 27tli of February ultimo, proposed to 
amend said resolutions, by strlkins: out all thereof after the word Resolved, 
in the first resolution, and inserting the following: 

*• 1. Jiefoked, That the rights of the citizens of the United States to indemnity from 
the Government of France, stipulated by the treaty concluded at Paris on the'4'.h of 
July, 18ol, ought, in no event, to be sacrificed, abandoned, or impaired, by any con- 
sent or acquiescence of the Government of the United stales. 

"2. Resolved, That if it be, in the opinion of the President of the United States, 
compatible with the honor and interest of the United States, during the uiterval until 
the next sess'on of Congresfs, to resume the negotiations between the United States 
and France, he be requested so to do. 

"3. Resolved, That no legislative measure of a hostile character or tendency to- 
•»ards the French nation is necessary or expedient at this time." 

The resoUilion of my colleague was modified; the words " at all hazards'' 
were stricken out to make it entirely pacific, and leave not the scnMance of 
a threat, to hazard iwthing; and, so amended, it passed unanimously. I give 
die words of my colleague: 

" This sentence, from which, with the general assent of the House, the 
words ' at all hazards' had been withdrawn, was finally moved by me: and 
every member present, two hundred and seventeen in number, answered at 
the call of his name, ay. 

" The resolution was in these words: 

*' Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the treaty with France, of the 4th 
of Jul}', 1831, should be maintained, and its execution insisted on." 

As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Cambueleng) has stated some 
conversation about this resolution as a substitute for the resolutions of the 
committee, I trust I may be pern)iitcd to say a word in relation to myself. 
I took no pan in the debate; but if my life had been at stake, I could hardly 
have fell more interest. The war resolutions were combatted with argument 
and spirit. It was on that occasion that my colleague was said to have made 
hh peace speech, when l:c declared he would have dodged the war question 
)iimself, and ho approved the course of the Senate. 1 was delighted with it. 
It was peace, and not war. IJut the contlict was severe, and the Hnuse very 
nearly equally divided, and I feared irar resolutions, by jiossibility, might 
pass; I went across the chamber to sec the chairman of the Committee on 
Foreign Afiairs, (Air. CAMnitM.i'Nc;) 1 pioposed to hint to take the resolution 
of IMr. Adams as amended, which we afterwards adopted. I observed, you 
may entirely fail. He asked if my side, or party, would vote for it. I rt[)iied 
I could answer but for one; I would vote for it. This resolution was adopted 
unanimously, nm, judge what must be my astonishment, when 1 hear my 
colleague (IMr. Adams) say: 



11 

" He hoped lie liad sliowii that the section making the appropriation of 
ihreo millions was introduced from ahsolule necessity, on the last day ot 
the session, because it was in consequciiCQ of tlie unanimous vote of the 
(jiay prccedinir. Was ho now to he told that this and the oilier llouso 
must not appropriate money unless by recommendation from the Executive? 
Why, sir, tiie Executive has told us now that that appropriation was pdi-fr-ctly 
in accordance with his wishes. He upun repeated, why was it that the House 
must be chaij^od with inan-woiship and unconstiunional conspiracy, because 
they passed an appropriation of three millions /(;r the dffimce of ike country, 
at a time when imminent dan'j;er of war was urged, as resulliii.tj from that very- 
resolution which hut the nielli before passed by a unanimous vole? Because, 
forsooth, ihat appropriation had not been called for by ihe Exeg^Jlive, and 
yet because it was approved by the Executive." 

Does my colleaLHic mean to say that an;/ body in the House of Represent- 
atives ever pretended that his harmless, peaceful resolution was the lounda- 
tion of a war approprialion? Does he pretend, after all that passed, ihat 
any body ever said or thought that " imminent danger of war" resulted <rom 
his peaceful resolution? Had that been the fact, had it been so understood, 
would he, or ani/ man, pretend that a unanimous vote could have been ob- 
tained? Mr. Speaker, precisely the reverse teas the fact in relation to myself. 
I believe it was so as to a ma)ority, if not all of that House, excepting my 
colleague. I am quite sure it was so in n'fcrence to those wilh whom my col- 
league acted, called the peace party, the party opposed to Executive recom- 
mendation, as to the dispute wilh France. We resolved that the treaty with 
France of 4th of July should be maintained, and its execution insisted upon. 
How? By war, or war measures? No. By negotiation. By explanation. 
By giving France an opportunity to see and feel that her honor is pledged to 
fulfil the treaty, and that we will continue to urge and insist upon its fullilmenf. 

It will be long remembered that my colleague (Mr. A.) made a speech in 
the House of Representatives, I think on the 7lh of February, in reference 
to our dift'icullies with France, and a few days before the ''war rifsolutions" 
I have been speaking of had been presented. That speech was considered 
an unjustifiable attack upon the Senate for their pacific course in relation to 
France, and was called a war speech. I was among those friends who be- 
lieved, from various circumstances, that my colleanue's views had been in 
some measure misunderstood; and I so represented it here and clscichere. 1 
found difficulty in understanding the phrase used in his speech, " dodging the 
question," as applied to the Senate, in a good sense; but 1 had the highest 
authority for so understanding it. In about one week afterwards, my col- 
league made a speech in this House called "fl peace speech,'" in which ho 
approved the course the Senate had pursued in relation to France, and said 
he would "dodce the (piestion himself." U\s pacijic resolutions were in ac- 
cordance with his peace speech. Are we now to be told that " imminent 
danger of war was urged as resulting from the resolution we adopted, and that 
the adoption of that resolution was good and sutTicient cause for the three mil- 
lion appropriation?" I heard no such argument then. My colleague's various 
speeches and resolutions in relation to our dispute with France seem so con- 
tradictory, that I leave to his own genius and learning the labor of showing 
his consistency. I affirm, if the resolution contemplated war, or preparation 
for war, it was to the House of Representatives war in disguise. 

And, again, my colleague says, referring to said third resolution: " The 
resolution was laid on the table at ihe motion of the chairman of the com- 
mittee who had reported it, and who then, in my hearing, and in the hearing 



12 

of all in the House who chose to hear him, gave notice that he should, in its 
stead, move an additional appropriation in the fortification bill then before 
the House. Whether he named t!ie sum of tlirce millions as that which he 
should propose, or not, I do not recollect. He hud openly spoken in the 
House, before, as contemplating a larger sum. Considering the contingent 
and possible danger against which it was to provide, I thought the sum cer- 
tainly not too larae." 

I believe it, because my colleague says so, and because the gentleman 
from i\ew York declared it in his speech a few minutes ago. What was the 
mighty import of such a declaration nnide by a disappointed chairman, de- 
feated in his projects, and by the elTicicn^ aid of my colleague too? He and 
his friends were defeated and disappointed. Peace prevailed over war. 
But the gentleman from New York threatened, as he retreated, to ask for ad- 
ditional appropriations, d:c.; and this happened on the evenins: of the 2d of 
March, and that loas notice of the three millions. I purposely, on this occa- 
sion, avoid going into a consideration of ihe value and importance of prepara- 
tion for defence in time of peace. It docs not appertain to this debate; but 
those who are now accused of neglect have steadily pursued that policy to a 
reasonable extent, and, by so doing, have subjected themselves to the re- 
jproarhr.s of their present accusers. 

Cut my colleague quotes the third rcsoKilion of the Commiltee on Foreign 
Aflairs, as follows: " Resoh^ed, That contingent preparation ought to be 
made, (0 meet any emergency growing out of our relations with France;" and he 
says, " This was the resolution intended to sustain at once the spirit of the 
President's recommendations, and tiie sincerity cf the resolution just adopted 
by the House." I perfectly concur with him that the above resolution was in- 
tended to sustain the recommendations of the Committee on Foreign Affairs; 
hu\, be it remeinbci'cd, those resolutions were virtuallij rejected, and my col- 
league's peace resolution substituted. I deny that the three million appro- 
priation ever was intended to sustain the sincerity of the resolution adopted. 
Never — never. 

I again refer to the resolutions I Inve read — Foreign Affairs, and my col- 
league's substitute: 



Third resolution of Foreign Affairsi. 

'■ lieiolved, That contingent preparation 
ou'^lit to be nnJe, to meet any eiiii^rgcncy 
growing out of our relations with France." 



J/r. Adams'' s substitute for the third 
resolution. 
" Resolved, That no legislative measure 
of a hostile rharaott^r or tenJcncy towards 
the French nation is necessary or expedient 
at this tiue." 

According to my recollection, the speeches were more at variance, if pos- 
sible, than the resolutions themselves. 

Let us for a moment examine the defence of those who professed to have 
constitutional scruples as to the time of the termination of Congress; and here 
I read my colleague's argument, as follov^s, vi/,: 

" He was not one of those who believed that the sc-^ion ri.dcil at midnight. 
In his opinion, the two years' duration of Congress was from the time of day 
at which the House commenced its session — say the hour of noon on the 4th 
ol I\l;irch. He believed that to be the true construction of ihe constitutional 
term of two years; btit it was a constitutional question, and it was not for 
liini to judge of the motives of men who conscientiously believed that the 
period of their political existence had expired. Wh-n thi* Cumberland road 
bill passed, the question was taken by yeas and nay-^, and the vote was 94 
to SO, making 174 voles. Here was a quorum voting, which showed that the 



13 

House, at 12 o'clock, was doiiK,' business; but in leu minutes after that, no 
quorum could be found — not in constquencc of there not being members 
present, but in consequence of their conscientious soniplcs. He recollected 
the instance of a gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Gii.Mr.u,) a man as con- 
scientious and as imelli^enl as any member of lliat or the present House, 
who, upon being called, refused to answer, and gave as his reason that he 
was no longer a representative of the people, «nd, immediately after the 
vote was taken, went out of the House ai that door, and never relmned. It 
was not, therefore, the want of a sufficient number of members ur«;sent, but 
from the conscientious conviction of so large a numbr'r of the members, as 
reduced the remainder to less than a quorum, that they had no right to' vote 
on any tliiuir in the House. After that took place, tlie Committee, of Con- 
ference returned to the House, but no np(nt was made; and what was the 
reason? Because there was no House, The roll was called, and no nuoruni 
was to be found. 

"He said he did not consider that the constitutional term of two years, as- 
signed to the members of the House of Representatives, and the term of four 
years, during which the President holds his oflke, commence or expire, at 
midnight. The services of two and of fuur years commenced running from 
the time when the members of the first Congress assembled to commeiice the 
operations of this Government under the constitution of tl;e United Stales, 
which was on the 4th of J.Iurcii, 1789, at noon. Tlie two years from that 
lime expired, not on the 3d of March, 1791, at midnight, but on the 4th of 
March, at noon. The expiration of a year is not from noon to midnight, but 
from noon to noon, it is so, astronomically, by the law of nature. The time 
at whicli a day shall commence and terminate is a matter altogether arbitrary 
and conventional. Some nations have, in their civil compulation, commenced 
the day at sunrise, and some at sunset — some at midniiiht, and some at noon. 
Astronomers and navigators always reckon the day from noon to noon; and 
why should not the constitutional computation of time follow the same law, 
which is the law of nature? The principle once establii^hed, could be attend- 
ed with no sort of inconvenience; whereas the compulation from noon to 
midnight must be subjected once every two years to a solution of continuity 
for twelve hours by tlie non-existence of a House of Representatives, and 
once in everv fuur years to an interregnum or vacancy in the office of Presi- 
dent of the United Stales. Emergencies might easily be foreseen, perhaps 
even precontrived, in which either of those events would be a'ttended with 
very creat public inconvenience. Monarchical Governments are always 
guarded wiili tiie utmost possible care against every solution of continuity: 
their kings never die. It would be a radical defect in every republican Gov- 
ernment not to bo invested with the same official immortality — the office always 
filled, however frequently the individ-ial incumbent may be changed. St was 
therefore my opinion ihat the House might have sat transacting business till 
noon of the 4th of March; and, accordingly, my name will be found and re- 
corded on every taking of the yeas and nays until the adjournment, after it 
was announced that the Senate had adjourned. 

" Mr. A. said that was his opinion then, and he had then expressed it to the 
House; but it was not the opinion of a large number of members of the House. 
The members were in the House ready to vote, but in their opinion the lime 
had passed. Now, whatever was doine at that time in the House iniglit have 
been known to every member of the Senate, if they had seen fit to make the 
inquirv. It was perfectly known that after that time no quorum of the House 
could be found. -No vote was taken. The House was de facto dead." 



14 

1 will only add, that the usage and construction as to the time of the ex- 
piration of office, I believe, have been uniform; that it has happened very 
frequenlly, 1 know, that Congress have Leon in session hours afitr 12 o'clock, 
the 3d of Miucii, and at tl)e expiration of iheir respective terms of office; and so 
of all our Presidents. Genenil Washington, as I have been inforn.ed, and 
believe, at the expiration of his first term of four years, arose, after lie had 
been in bed, at 2 o'clock in the morning of the 4ih of March, and signed many 
bills, which, in consequence of his signing, became laws, affecting lite and prop- 
erty. Have we not all heard of the midnight judges, &,c. of the elder Ad- 
ams? Mr. Jefferson did the same. Mr. Madison, Mr. Monroe, and mv col- 
league himself, unless I greatly misreniembcr, imitated the example of all his 
predj;ce.;sors. Who ever seriously called it in question until the od of March, 
1835, when the apjiropriation for fortifications was before us, and the three 
millions could not pass the Senate? 

Yet, after presenting the above unanswerable argument in defence of him- 
self, as well as others, my colleague is at no loss to find a perfect apology for 
those who violated the constitution and their duty, and defeated tlie liil.^ Jly 
colleague snys, after the return of the Committee of Conference, " there was 
no House — not for the want of numbers;" the roll was called, and no quorum. 
AVhy? Because a number refused to answer. He states " a large nuaiber 
were ready to vote, but the time had passed; and it might have been known 
to every member of the Senate, if lliey had seen fit to make the inquiry." 
Again: " the House was de facto dead." But my colleague has himself shown, 
conclusively, it was not dead de. jure. It was rightfully and constitutionally 
alive, and the Senate were bound so to consider it, and govern themselves 
accordingly. They did so act; and their notice and attention to the House, 
after the}' chose to consider themselves dead, though present and noisy, seems 
to have incurred the peculiar displeasure of m\- colleague and the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Camrkelexg) who has just resumed his seat. 

But Mr, Gilmer, of Georgia, refused to vote, on account of conscientious 
scruples. His case, I believe, has been named by every speaker on this sub- 
ject. I knew Mr. Gilmer, in this House, for a number of years. I believe 
he is a pure, honest, and honorable man. He entertained, we thought, many 
singular opinions of the constitution, and he widely differed from us in its 
construction. J\Ir. Gilmer had scruples; and what did he do? Arose, de- 
clined acting, and left the House, and has never since returned. The very 
praise and commendation bestowed on Mr. Gilmer is censure to those who 
entertained the sauio doubts, and yet remained here to vote, or not to vote, as 
circumstances made the constitution more or less dear in their estimation. 
But Mr. Gilmer is tho standing witness of honest scruples. " Exeeptio pro- 
bat regulani.'''' Where were the other i\Ir. Giinjers, or those who trod in his 
steps! The gentleman from Now York (Mr. CAMHREt,r,.NG) was so pressed 
with conscientious scruples, that he refused to report and act upon the forti- 
fication bill; but his conscience was less scrupulous as to other matters, and 
he staid to vote and act, and did vole and act, upon other subjects before 
the House, loog after he refused to act upon the fortification bill. Let him 
reconcile such inconsistency. 

The House was reduced, in a short time, by scruples, froni 174 to 111, 
and this appears on the yeas and nays; and, by looking at the names on the 
yeas and nays at the two different periods, those " noisy dead men" my col- 
league speaks of may be known as absentees, ihough present. 

T most siilcnmly aver to my constituents and country that T was in favor 
of the fortification bill; that I thought the original bill insufficient, and tried 



15 

to increase it; that I voted against the three million amendment with pain, 
because I wished a liberal specific appropriation; but I believed the three 
million section a violation of the spirit of our free govcrnnicnl, and of dan- 
gerous tendency. 1 well renieniber a conversation on that nijjlit with a wor- 
thy member, not now here. Ho asked me why I did not vote for the three 
millions? I replied, that three millions was a great sum; the use to he made 
of it was not specilied, (fcc. lie answered. General Jackson will not spcud 
a dollar of it, (Sec. I then rejoined, if that be so, it ought not lo he voted- 
you have confidence in the President, which I have not; hut if three millions 
may he so voted without specification, twenty millions may he so voted- or 
words to lliat eflect. It may not be sate, even in your opinion, hereafter to 
trust it \vit!i other Presidents. It is a dangerous and unsafe precedent, and 
ought not to pass. 

I had been educated to believe that the President of the United States had 
not too much power. I had heard much said of the dangerous tendencv of 
presidential power, and of the increase of that power. Bui I never witnessed 
so much evidence of the truth of that democratic apprehension as on the nioht 
of the -"Jd of March, 1805. I declare most solemnly, that, in my opinion, (and 
I saw those who ttcre counted and who were tint,) there was a quorum until 
we adjourned. 1 believe I Iiad the honor to make some of the last remarks 
upon a motion to call the House. 1 then slated that there was a quorum 
present, and it was well known to all, tlnit when genlier.ien chose to be 
counted, they wcrQ present; and when they chose not to be counted, they rc- 
trtalid or refused to vote; tl:at the most important business of ihe session yet 
remained undone, &c. 

Much has been said by my colleague and others in regard io a vote of the 
.Senate to adhere against tlio amendment proposing the three millions. It is 
said that that vot>; q\' adherence was contrary to a!i parliamentary usa^-e, and 
was the cause of all the evils we experienced on the Sd of March, and the loss 
of the bill itself. The gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Cambreleno) 
has made the same comjilaint. 

As gentlemen speak with confidence, I will refer them to a case in jjoint, 
and precisely the reverse of what they. suppose the parliamentary usage; and 
I trust the authority will not be questioned by my colleague, or the eentleman 
from New York. The case I refer to is found in the Journal of tiie Senate 
19th Congress, 1st session, pages 306 and 307. Here IMr. Kked read the 
case. [Mr. Adams called aloud to know the book and page.] The House of 
Representatives and Senate disagreed as to a judiciary bill, and " Mr. Van 
Buren, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, drew up a report, which con- 
cludes with resolving not to insist, but adhere, and but twelve dissented; and the 
report states, it is expressly within the rules, and best to prevent the unprofit- 
able formality of a conference at this advanced period of the session." iSIark 
sir, this happened fourteen days before the close of the session. In the case 
of the fortification bill, the Senate had determined not to agree to the three 
million section, and a few hours only must close the session. 

Mr, Cambreleng then moved that the House insist on said amendment; 
which motion was agreed to. The Senate then voted to adhere as to the 
three millions. A motion was again made in the House of Representatives 
to rcofide, and give up the three millions. We voted nearly as before: mv 
colleague, (Mr. A.) and other colleagues, and myself, voting to recede: aves 
88, noes 107. A confer«jnce with the Senate was then proposed and passed, 
and conferees appointed. The conferees of the House and Senate agreed 
upon a compromise. T.'ie bill was to pass with all amendments, and, instead 



16 

of $3,000,000 ii) gross, it was agreed to add $800,000, and make it specific, 
viz: §300,000 for arming the foruficaiions, and §500,000 for repairs and 
equipment of ships of war. And my colleague finds fault even wiili tliis com- 
promise, and says: " The approjjriation was made positive, instead of being 
contingent upon a necessity not certain to come; and it was confined to two 
objects of permanent ordinary appropriation, still leaving the j)ossible contin- 
gent danger unprovided for." 1 coniess I am wholly at a loss to knov, what 
my colleague did desire. I can see one thing very distinctly — that he does 
not desire to agree with the Senate. 

The appropriation bill, as agreed upon by the Committee of Conference, 
might have passed before or after the hour of 12 o'clock. I have no doubt 
the conferees returned before half-past 11. I h:ive every reason to believe it. 
It n)ight have passed after 12 o'clock, but for the improper interposition of a 
few members of this House, the friends of the Executive. 

The bill was then returned to the House, and "a motion was made by 
' Mr. Gholson that the House recede from its amendment, proposing to insert 
' an additional section, as the second section of the bill, containing an appro- 
' priation of §3,000,000." On this question, there were yeas 87, nays 110. 
All my colleagues, including JMr. A., voted to recede and strike out the 
$3,000,000, upon the success of which one might suppose some men thought 
the salvation of the country depended. 

The report of the Committee of Conference was delayed by the chairman. 
After much delay, (the precise period I cannot slate,) Mr. Lewis, another 
member of the committee, made the report; but objections were made that 
there was no quorum, and, therefore, it could not be adopted. The business 
was intentionally delayed, and the little time we had, wasted. Tellers 
were appointed; 3Ir. Cambreleng and Mr. Lewis, on counting, found there 
was not a quorum; not that a quorum was not present, but a sufficient num- 
ber took care to be out of the way to defeat a quorum. And my colleague 
says, we had not the power of Joshua of old, who comiiianded the suu and 
moon to stand still. We wanted not such power, but the power to move in 
the discharge of duly. 

I have overlooked one fact of some importance; it is this: " IVIr. Jarvis 
*' moved the following resolution, viz: ' Resolved, That the hour having arrived 
" when the term for which this House was elected has expired, we do now 
" adjourn.' The said resolution was read, when the Speaker decided that it 
" was not in order to offer it at this time, unless by unanimous consent, or a 
*' suspension of the rules; but suggested that the object aimed to be attained 
*' by the resolution could be accom[)lish('d by a motion that the House do 
" adjourn. Mr. Jones, of Georgia, then, for the purpose of trying the ques- 
" tion, and ascertaining whether the House thinks itself authorized to continue 
" in session, and to transact business after 12 o'clock at niaht on the 3d day 
" of March, moved th;it the House do adjourn. And the question bcinir put, 
" it was decided in the negative." This negative, is a negative pregnant, 
affirming that we did think ourselves authorized to do business after 12 o'clock;, 
thereby setting the seal of our deliberate vote to our own condemnation. But 
remember, the memorable report of the Committee of Conference had not 
then been made, though it should have been done, and there was a press of 
business that many members were desirous of transacting. The main pressure 
of constitutional scruples was upon the fortification, bill, without the three 
million amendment. 

Mr. Speaker, the fortification bill was reported to the House of Represent- 
atives January 2d, and passed the House January 21st, fifty-two days from 



l: 



tlie comir.tiicciiicni of il,,- session. \\v took fifiy-iwo d:ivs out of the ninctv- 
tliroc to |)ic|);ue tr.e hill. Ii wiis llicn sent to tlie Senate', and relumed Feb- 
ruary 24, ader ihiity-fonr days, and scvcmi days before the close of the session. 

Our bill, as it passed tlie House of Representatives, contained 

appropriations for fortifications, - - - . .4430 000 

Senate's anicndnicnis, as finally aijrocd, - - . 4.'Jo'oUO 

„ , , , , $8Gy,000 

J-lacI ue agreed to those amendments without adding a section 
of tl-^e millions, it would have passed without dispute. 

By the conference, it was further ;!;:reed to add $^500,000 for 
arming the fortifications, and $5UO,(J0O fur repairs aiid equip- 
ment of ships of war, making - - . . 800 000 

$1.6G1),000 

in all, one million six hundred and sixty-nine .tliousand dollars; a reM^cctabb 
sum— very respectable compared with 8439,000; and one would think, of all 
others, a majority of the House of Representatives oualit not to complain 

Mr. Speaker, I perceived, before the hour of 12 o'clock on the 3d of March 
a drtcnnuiation not to pass the bill. The report of the conference was held 
back. The bill was delayed. The chairman would not report, but voted 
and spoke, and acted upon other business. Mr. Lewis at last reported the 
bill, and then constitutional scruples were interposed as to the hour and min- 
ute, and gentlemen would not answer when called. I believe the bill (the 
motives that inlluenced gentlemen I leave to themselves) was defeated inien- 
itouallij by those who were known and called administration men. 

Why did they, under various pretences, detain and defeat the'whole bill? 
No change had taken place in our relations with France. There was no cause 
for change in appropriations, unless the scent ivill of tiie Executive produced 
that change. The House of Representatives acted a most singular and incon- 
sistent part. They could not be induced to add a dollar to their bill appro- 
priating 8439,000, until March 3d in the evening, and then they insisted upon 
addin? three millions, and it must be that or nothing. My colleacrucs and 
myself voted for all amrndvients and all increase, except the three^millions 
and would gladly have added the .$800,000. But it must be three n.illions in 
addition, or the whole bill must be destroyed. It was destroi/ccl. I could 
not vote for three millions. It was large in amount, indefinite in its object 
for military and naval service, generally, under the direction of the President! 
The Presideijl's message was a war message. He had frcquenilv, as far as 
I know, with every body, spoken of his desire for reprisal and war; and he 
knows how to accomplish his purposes better than any other man. 'l feared 
the consequences of putting the monev in his hand. 

I deeply lamented the failure of the fortification bill. Though I have long 
been a member of the House of Representatives, I never witnessed there such 
strange proceedings as on the 3d of March, in regard to the fortification bill 
It the I resident believed the public good actually required an appropriation 
of three millions, which lie informs us in his message " ?/-as ins,rt,d in ac 
cordancr with the views of the Erecutivc," he ought to have so infbrmed us— 
not privatfl,/, to a few, but/>»i/yc/y— and to have presented the reasons for his 
ivfjrs.thatwc mieht judge and act as responsible, free, and independent Repre- 
sentatives of a free people. But three millions was "inserted in accordance 
with the views of the Executive;" a less sum was not in accordance with his 



18 

vietcs. And when a less sum was agreed upon by ihe Committee of Con- 
ference, and the chairman (Mr. Cambrelexg) had returned to iliis House lo 
make report of the result, (as he lias just informed us in his speech,) he met 
in this House IMr. Forsyth, Secretary of Slate, wlio inquired whether the 
Committee of Conference had agreed; and, when informed that a compromise 
Iiad taken place, and that §800,000 had been agreed upon instead of the 
three millions, Mr. Forsyth pronounced it a pitiful sum. It will, be understood 
that the President and his Cabinet sit in a room appropriated for the purpose 
in the Capitol, during the last night of the ses^^ion, to facilitate the business. 
The Secretary of State sits at the right hand of the President, as an adviser. 
He had just left the room, and might well be presumed to know and express 
the iciM of the Execut'ive. It was not in accordance with the will of the Ex- 
ecutive; and that was well understood by the chairman, by the remarks of the 
Secretary of State, if he heard nothing more; and he, and others who acted 
with him, seemed most suddenly to lose all interest in the bill. It was de- 
termined that the bill, as finally agreed upon by the Committee of Conference, 
should not pass the House; that, as the Senate had refused to agree to the 
" three million anjendmeni" proposed by the House, the loss of the whole 
bill, including ordinary appropriations for fortifications, should be charged 
to th'it body. Tliis dfcision canie with a weight and energy not to be with- 
stood. The House would not pass a bill, the provisions of which the Presi- 
dent's first Secretary had just pronounced pitiful. Then came the last 
scene — delay, constitutional scruples, refusal to vote, threats against the 
Senate, &,c. &-c.; and so perished the fortification bill in the House of Rep- 
resentatives. 

As soon as this debate shall have been closed, (I hope and trust others who 
were present will not I'ail lo express their opinions,) 1 am desirous of attend- 
ing lo the appropriation bills and other important business before the House. 
I trust some good may result from the evil of which there is so loud com- 
plaint; that we may not hereafter neglect the important business under our 
charge to the last few disputed hours of the session, when there may be 
neither time nor means to perform such duties with fidelity and sound dis- 
cretion; when it may be in the power of a few, even a single individual, to 
defeat the most important measure. 

I have always considered the fortification bill, with the three million amend- 
ment proposed, as a subject of vast importance, as involving more or less 
the question of peace or war — a question of vital importance to those whom 
I have the honor to represent. Since the President, in his annual message to 
Congress, has seen fit to complain of the loss of that bill; since the adminis- 
tration presses and administration men reiterate the complaint; since my col- 
league has seen fit to bring the subject before this House by a resolution and 
speech, 1 have fell bound to vindicate my own conduct, and the conduct of 
those with whom I had the honor to auree and act, and present the case to 
tills House and the people, and especially to my constituents, to whom, with- 
out distinction of party, I am under obligations I shall never be able to can- 
cel. I feel and acknowledge the weight of those obligations, and I trust, 
when my conduct shall be understood, their justice and candor will acquit me 
of negligence or want of fidelity in the discharge of my duty. 



S9 w 



^- "^ ,V^' ... -•**- 




A^ 



^^\\>?^\'\, / .v.^;^';-. "^^ ^-e-" /^^^%, 












0^ 



^'^■, ^ .^ ^'^ * "SSSW^^' -r 






-1^. « 



C" ♦* 



Z/'^^^^:'. ^^^ 












yi.<-Ul * 



V' -^> ^•^^^^^' . 'V > -.^ 






rO^ .; 



:/ 



• . • A*^ 






> :^.i^-\- ^1^ 






^: 






<-j 



->''-^ 






■% 



< 






*.,^- .^ 



^ 



*1 o^ 






;■> 



'^ 



.y ,«v 



lU' 



^^ .,.o. '-- 



^ 



■.(^ 



..'^.-^ /^V/h>. '^'^ 






r.'- 

n^'' // 









r.. 






. % 






ts &"■.•♦ 



•• *^ 



V. 









,^^ 



^ 



^*^ 






V 







.^^ 



o.. *.; 


















V\' t • • » 



A^ 







.t*^ 






y^ff?^\^ ^o 




.0 ^r- 



• O 






^^ 



.0' 



V. 









-. •' .o*" 



.i r-i 



>*\^>'-'°\.^°- 
/^J^-- **. 



. T 















. ' • o . 






» 






>^ 



^ » 



'•It >'% ■-• 



■^^0^- — 



N^. ■* • • • ^^ 



^.> ^ 



.•^^. 



. » • • 



~ J — d >. 



1; Grjfi^illc, ^A 

y- ■^ '' ■ ■ ■^ '•. <i<a 



4^ 



*rr.-' A**-' 



.^^ 



»" r^ 



.< 






■^'■' \ \ 



